Einstein was right!

[Strange]

It was about 20 yrs ago it was detected and measured am I correct?

 

 

If 52 is about 20, then yes.

[Butch]

I checked it was about 40 yrs ago, damn I'm old.

OK 52...

Do you think it can be measured accurately enough to be my measuring stick?

Edited November 16, 2016 by Butch

[Strange]

 

 

If CMB remains constant I am right, if not I am wrong.

 

If it remains constant (and you will have to wait a few million years, at least, to find out) then you need to explain the source. (Because the current explanation would be wrong.)

 

Do you know the origin of the CMB?

[Butch]

Yes, I am no expert, but I know enough to understand that it is a marker for the Big Bang.

[Strange]

Yes, I am no expert, but I know enough to understand that it is a marker for the Big Bang.

 

 

That is too vague.

 

If you don't understand the origin, and why it has exactly the spectrum and temperature that it does, then you cannot understand why it proves your idea wrong.

[swansont]

I would like to see how you arrived at that, not saying it is wrong, just something I had not considered and could be a great help.

 

 

It's an implication of what you said. If the measured time from the Big Bang is constant, according to your model, then the CMB can't have changed value.

 

I am asking how you arrive at that conclusion. It's your model. Show how you could have this hot, dense state in the early universe whose temperature is about 3 K.

 

BTW, "dang, I didn't think of that implication" is not a good sign that you have a viable model. Just sayin'

[Butch]

I have some homework to do, I will do it. You all have been very helpful.

[Butch]

Yes something like that: gravity should be a kind of acceleration. Or better, gravity should be the reaction we feel from a kind of acceleration. If that is true, then we know the direction of this acceleration: it has a direction from outside to the inside, it is radial. IOW it has the effect of a scale factor.

But once you make such a statement like "everything is expanding" there is a question arising.

If I am expanding, and you are expanding too, then why aren't we bumping together?

Take 2 ping pong balls at a distance of 10 centimeters, then "expand" the balls and transform it into soccer balls. If each ball expands relative to its center, then the 2 balls will hit each other. The only way to avoid this is to make the distance between the ping pong balls also "expand". The 10 cm must also transform into 100cm.

How is that possible? How can the void between the balls increase? And how does the expansion take place? Relative to what center?

We are not bumping into each other because the vectors resulting from the force of the Earths expansion and our own are diverging.

[Butch]

I see where you are missing my point and it is my fault, I suppose. I am saying that rather than matter having been contained in a smaller spatial region, perhaps matter and space were constricted relative to a later time. Matter being a form of energy, it could be compressed but still retain its classical form as evidenced now, if space were also constricted. It is a matter of perception.

Interestingly, if this were the case, the universe would have been cooler in the past and there would need to be a source of energy to fuel expansion.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Butch

[Mordred]

when quite the opposite occurs and the pressure/temperature performs the work for expansion.

[michel123456]

I see where you are missing my point and it is my fault, I suppose. I am saying that rather than matter having been contained in a smaller spatial region, perhaps matter and space were constricted relative to a later time. Matter being a form of energy, it could be compressed but still retain its classical form as evidenced now, if space were also constricted. It is a matter of perception.

Interestingly, if this were the case, the universe would have been cooler in the past and there would need to be a source of energy to fuel expansion.

I don't understand why the universe would have been cooler in the past.

 

If matter and space were compressed by the same factor, for a compressed observer, everything would appear as it appears today, or in the future, or in the past. The time stamp would play no role.

The question is what would the past look like? It would appear compressed. Why do you believe it would appear cooler?

[Butch]

I don't understand why the universe would have been cooler in the past.

 

If matter and space were compressed by the same factor, for a compressed observer, everything would appear as it appears today, or in the future, or in the past. The time stamp would play no role.

The question is what would the past look like? It would appear compressed. Why do you believe it would appear cooler?

It would be condensed, not compressed. We would be looking for a source of energy, rather than a heat signature.

when quite the opposite occurs and the pressure/temperature performs the work for expansion.

I believe we have assumed that to be the case, evidence does not prohibit either case. I keep saying I am not disputing current theory, Hubble can measure distance via red shift, if however the red shift were due to a different process things might not be receding at all. I am working on some math in this area and will most likely ask you for some assistance. My thoughts are that if space is expanding at an accelerating rate, photons would have to be accelerated to maintain relative c, but what about wavelength?

E=mv^2

Edited December 5, 2016 by Butch

[Mordred]

Sure I'll be happy to look over your equations when you develop them. Its good training to try to model build.

 

For wavelength you want to use the cosmological redshift equation. However for your proposal if I understand correctly show that it is equivalent to gravitational redshift.

 

However I will forewarn you this has been tried using proper distance. Which will only take you to the Hubble horizon.

 

You won't be able to use commoving distance as this would counter your model.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

Sure I'll be happy to look over your equations when you develop them. Its good training to try to model build.

 

For wavelength you want to use the cosmological redshift equation. However for your proposal if I understand correctly show that it is equivalent to gravitational redshift.

 

However I will forewarn you this has been tried using proper distance. Which will only take you to the Hubble horizon.

 

You won't be able to use commoving distance as this would counter your model.

The relative energy of the photon would be maintained by the increase in velocity... But what about wavelength? That is the math I am working on, I do want to keep Hubble.

[Mordred]

Fair enough lets start with basics first.

 

[latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{\hbar c}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{\hbar c}[/latex]

 

Here is your basic relations

 

Gravitational redshift is

 

[latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex]

 

Relativistic Doppler being

 

[latex]\acute{\lambda}=\lambda\frac {\sqrt{1+v/c^2}}{\sqrt{1-v/c^2}}[/latex]

 

Cosmological redshift being

 

[latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex]

 

So which would you like to see how it is derived first? I would recommend the relativistic doppler first but I will let you choose. In particular on e=mc^2.

 

If I try to do gravitational and cosmological at the same time the post will get too lengthy.

 

Actually lets save time I'll give you the relevant articles covering each.

 

Cosmological redshift chapter 12.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi6hbf7zL_QAhXCgrwKHVAVAcsQFggiMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.damtp.cam.ac.uk%2Fuser%2Fdb275%2FCosmology%2FLectures.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGxvGWwx9QmCl2FyZLAUmB7lkZ7xQ

 

This article details how to derive relativistic Doppler from the Lorentz transformations and also how to derive e=mc^2.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO1PDF/V12N1HAM.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiRhP66qN7QAhVN92MKHWu0A1oQFgggMAQ&usg=AFQjCNE7J5SUCJTwOV5K_By-nj7CZmOkQQ

 

PS the first article covers the key formulas in Cosmology but there is a section on temperature influence on redshift.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Mordred

[michel123456]

It would be condensed, not compressed. We would be looking for a source of energy, rather than a heat signature.

I believe we have assumed that to be the case, evidence does not prohibit either case. I keep saying I am not disputing current theory, Hubble can measure distance via red shift, if however the red shift were due to a different process things might not be receding at all. I am working on some math in this area and will most likely ask you for some assistance. My thoughts are that if space is expanding at an accelerating rate, photons would have to be accelerated to maintain relative c, but what about wavelength?

E=mv^2

I think that if time is accelerated at the same rate as space, then the photons would maintain c.

[Butch]

I think that if time is accelerated at the same rate as space, then the photons would maintain c.

One or the other will be our reference, and will be considered as flat while the other is curved. I am sticking with flat time and curved space.

[Mordred]

What in the world do you mean by flat time?

 

If your using GR, spacetime is a single entity.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Mordred

[michel123456]

One or the other will be our reference, and will be considered as flat while the other is curved. I am sticking with flat time and curved space.

If Spacetime is a continuum, how can space be curved and time not?

[Mordred]

+1 for that question Michel

[Butch]

What in the world do you mean by flat time?

 

If your using GR, spacetime is a single entity.

The universe that we witness is indeed relative, the universe in which my hypothesis is based is absolute, it is certainly not proper to refer to them in this manner however, henceforth I shall refer to these as the relative realm and the absolute realm, I hope I have not lost you here, do you grasp the concept?

I apologize for original chart and math...

Rate of expansion = 1/time^2

 

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Butch

[Mordred]

Well I certainly am not following your logic circle here. Observations and experimental evidence strongly supports GR with relative spacetime. You agree to its accuracy so why would you try to model absolute spacetime?

 

Doesn't sound like a logical approach. Other than strictly Doppler shift you can't even have cosmological or gravitational redshift. They both require a change in mass density. Either through change in volume or simply change in distribution.

 

Isn't it your goal to model a steady state universe? If so why tackle GR as well?

Edited December 6, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

I will have to give some thought to how to explain this, it is essential to grasp the concept.

It is a process outside of our experience,my first task will be to find a way to link some references from the relative to the absolute.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Butch

[Mordred]

Yes your right its definitely outside the observational evidence.

 

PS we cross posted on my last edit.

 

Are you perchance alluding to some form of luminiferous ether?

 

Ie an absolute frame of reference?

Edited December 6, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

In the absolute realm, everything is expanding at an accelerating rate.

 

expansion rate = 1/time^2

 

At t0 the rate of expansion approaches infinity.

 

At t-n the rate of expansion approaches 0.

 

Impossible? Try plotting the function with limits of infinity...

 

Fortunately we live in the relative realm, everything we experience lies between t0 and t-1. We never experience t0, all that we perceive is in the past and all that is beyond t-1 is no longer in evidence. (We perceive t-1 as the beginning of the Big Bang)

 

The only evidence we have that the absolute realm exists is gravity.

 

Scientific evidence does not change, however some of our assumptions do...

 

As I see it, my task at this point is to find a system of translation between the two, I need to map t0 - t1 to the relative realm.

No, I am not referring to ether.

The map if I am successful will in fact be an absolute frame of reference.

My goal is not to model a steady state, that was just a pleasant surprise.

My original thoughts on the subject pertained to the nature of gravity.